Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?

in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On 19 Apr 2011, ray wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:44:15 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Better question: Why doesn't Canon stop playing games and man-up to
these features/abilities? ...support them. ....Even Better question:
...and the rest of the camera makers too? This is hardly rocket
science.

Development costs, I expect. It would cost them something to take the 3rd
party stuff and integrate into their firmware - or it would cost them
something to add the functionality themselves.

It seems to me that since the harware to software interface
is already there, and basically only their non-hardware
menu needs extending (made more complete,) it would be
camparitively free. Particularly since the guesswork
of CHDK authorship would not be there, cuz they have the
actual schematics AND said interface.

Would it cost them "something?" Perhaps, but that's
why I said "man-up to" rather than "pop in."
IOW, to a real man: Big Whoop.

But yes, I'd agree that their excuse is economic,
real or imagined. If it's real, I can't guess what it
might be now that they have had the years to make all
thier camera lines accessable and electronically superior.
(Thus not competing with each other feature-wise.)
My guess is, they falsely get their philosophy from
Microsoft - brains are bad. If so, a $20 firmware upgrade
as you suggest would solve this, -- only smart or needy
people would buy it, thus "protecting" the less inclined.
(Here, the higher price itself is actually a feature!)
I would happily buy that, rather than use free CHDK
with all it's delay, hassle and uncertainty...And is
the interface clunky too?

Evidently that is not
needed since folks still buy their equipment

If they had & advertised some of those features
(for a nice cam under $200!!!???) they'd clean up!

(well, some people do - I don't).

Yes, your obvious anti-Canon bias makes your required kneejerk
negative comments difficult to take seriously and easy to
reply in kind.

Perhaps if one maker would break things open by adding all the
bells and whistles, enough consumers would switch to their brand to
basically force everyone else to do the same

HAHA!!! BIN****INGGO!!!! Yup yup.

Think about how silly it is to NOT add popular
costfree features to a product in a competative market.
I believe that's an ipossibility accorting to the laws
of simple economics.
Oops! ...it's NOT a particularly competative market!??

- rather a 'chicken and egg' question - isn't it.

For the record, the chdk way of doing things seems rather obtuse to me.

Clunky, slow, uncertain, unproffesional, inconvienient, yup.
I'm about to install the beta, something that has me cringing
and commiting procrastination.

As I understand it, it's necessary to put a copy on every card you use in
the camera.

Yup. If I'm not mistaken, it also needs tweeking, customizing
for many functions.

Much better if it came as a firmware upgrade

Or somesuch, I agree. A halfway-step would be for
Canon to offer awards and prizes to the CHDK authors.
I'm sure that would eliminate my complaint, which
seems to be based on unmotivated software authors.
And who could blame them?
$1000, plus a Canon certificate would prolly do it.
What does Microsoft call their "authorized" forum
volunteers again?

- I recall that
some distributions of nikon 3rd party improvements came that way in the
past - don't know if they still do - but I installed such on my wife's
coolpix 2100.

I did the same. I installed a Pioneer stereo with Jenson
speakers and handmade enclosures in my van, plus an alarm
using Radio Shack switches. And handmade dome dimmers and
wiper delays also using Radio Shack parts. And mag wheels.....

However, I did not buy the camera with the expectation that
someone would add functionality.

Third party added functionality. "Expectation."
Big Whoop.
Yer just "protecting" yer initial silly comments
that you were forced to make by your prejudice.
(or worse?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:13:11 -0700, Crash! wrote:

I'm about to install the beta, something that has me cringing
and commiting procrastination.


Please don't.

I've seen this happen a thousand times. Some idiot who wouldn't even have
use for 1% of CHDK's features thinks they need it, so they then try to
install it.Then they overwhelm newsgroups and forums whining and
complaining that they don't know how to do this, or how to do that, or
what's this for, and why doesn't it do this, and what did they do wrong ...
on ad-infinauseum. Just like you've already been doing. If you install it
and get any closer to the project then you'll just be wasting the valuable
time of the CHDK programmers and developers by demanding they hold your
hand to get you through all the problems that you'll create for everyone,
instead of just wasting the time of disinterested people on usenet.

Go find some other way to get attention for yourself.

Why do I know that this is your ONLY reason you are even typing about CHDK?
Because why else would you be so happy about using the Acid installer if
you've never even installed it before--caught in one of your
desperate-for-attention troll's lies.

We don't need anymore total morons hanging on like unwiped turds onto the
ass-end of the CHDK project. There's more than enough of your kind already.

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, ken d wrote:

Go find some other way to get attention for yourself.

Why do I know that this is your ONLY reason you are even typing about CHDK?
Because why else would you be so happy about using the Acid installer if
you've never even installed it before--caught in one of your
desperate-for-attention troll's lies.

Huh!? So whacko you thinks Acid only DLs CHDK!?
Or did I fluff your feathers with my honesty,
and now yer on a blind delusional one-man lynch
mob again? smile Sounds like too many Limbaughtomies.
Have you considered Xanax? That, and an education
can cure that! In your case, add hash, lotso hash,
five times a day, too. ...Not for me, do it for your family.


We don't need anymore total morons hanging on like unwiped turds onto the
ass-end of the CHDK project.

Laughingggg!!! I'll tell that one to my little nephew,
he'll LOVE it! He's at that age, know what I mean?
Potty training, and all that.....

about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, ASCII wrote:


Crash! wrote:

Is Canon's CHDK Dead?

I dont' think so

...only goofballs now "support" it?

Speak for yourself.

The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on
19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable
At Walmart (and other high volume stores) since
around Oct 2010, replaced by the SX130 IS 12X zoom.

WalMart now has (in stock) the SX30-IS 35X zoom
and there's a CHDK available for it.

Cool. # SX30 (beta): 1.00e, 1.00h, 1.00l
Yet it also says: (2011 01 07) The following new ports now are
available from the Autobuild server:
Ixus95 (SD1200) 1.00C, G12 1.00C & 1.00E, SX30 1.00E, 1.00H &
1.00L


Canon PowerShot SX30 IS Review - Watch CNET's Video Review
Rated 3.5 out of 5.0 Review by Joshua Goldman - Oct 20, 2010
- Price range: $399.00

When did it come out?

in rec.photo.digital, about: Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?;
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:22:31 -0500, ken d wrote:


On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Crash! wrote:


The Canon PowerShot SX120 IS 10X zoom was released on
19th August 2009. It's been obsolete and unavailable

Do note that the SX30 was released only 6 months ago and CHDK for that
model is now nearly 100% functional.

But then that depends on what you consider 100% to be. If 90% of all known
CHDK functions are enabled, does that mean that you don't have a working
version of CHDK? There's a feature written to allow you to stamp dates and
personalized notes into your final JPG photos. It was written 3 years ago.
It's never been added to the main trunk and was only available for 4 camera
models. Does this mean that every non-beta version of CHDK is now only 97%
functional because that feature was never added to all cameras?


But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!

*ALL* versions of CHDK for *ALL* supported cameras are in perpetual Beta,
you MORON.

I didn't know that. How silly.
However, it's still not on the "Supported Cameras" list.
And ACID knows that too.

Hence version numbers like: 0.9.9-1127. Nobody has yet ever felt the desire
to finally call it CHDK v1.0, for ANY camera.

How Santa Cruz, California!

Take for example the PTPCamGUI feature that was began about 3 years ago. To
enable tethered-shooting (control by PC) on those cameras where Canon was
no longer going to support that function anymore. CHDK PTPCam was written
for only 1 or 2 camera models back then, and it was highly experimental.

Less than 2 weeks ago it was finally introduced into the main trunk and is
now enabled on ALL camera models. Camera's sold 4-5 years ago just now
finally got that CHDK feature. Should all those people whine and complain
because CHDK wasn't finished for their cameras yet as well? Where all
owners of all camera models that didn't have this feature being ripped-off
for 3 years because it wasn't available on their particular model?

Ok, you make good points.
However, to accuse somebody of "whine and complain,"
because one isn't "in the know, baby" of "special"
jargon does not seem appropriate.
Perpetual Beta!!!??? Please.



(Now, so is the CHDK for the "new" SX130.)
I wonder if this is because of the hackers themselves,
or is it from the CHDK guidelines, management, or whatever?


If CHDK hasn't been fully ported to your particular camera, that's YOUR
fault.

Oh brother. How Santa Cruz California, baby!

Time for you to hone-up your assembly skills!

I'll also pass along the word of what kind of ungrateful little asswipes
buy SX120's and then demand their camera is supported. Just for you. Let's
see if it gets "finished" faster, shall we?

Laugh. Get back to me when you get to high school, kid.
Or is it "dittohead?" ...the perfect "Authoritarian personality"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

"These traits are conventionalism, authoritarian submission,
authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception,
religion/superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness,"
destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated
concerns over sexuality (sexual repression).
In brief, the authoritarian is predisposed to follow the
dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional
values."

....so you expect me to be groveling to use CHDK,
to get my handout, just like your vision of (yourself
and) any good employee to get his handout from Daddy.

Knowing that little ****heads like you might benefit from CHDK in any way
really makes it difficult for ANYONE to want to help on the project at all.

Cheesh, as I said before, abstain from parenthood, dude!
Can you imagine a child or wife trapped next to that?

While Canon is not responsible for CHDK (wink wink,)

NOBODY from Canon has EVER been involved in the CHDK project. There's no
stupid "wink wink" about it.

Oh really!? You seriously think they left that
firmware accessable all these years BY ACCIDENT!?
Perhaps you know something I don't? Like......?

So unless this changes and they
get goal-oriented over there, unless you hear otherwise,
I reccomend to NOT make buying decisions based
on the assumption that you may eventually get CHDK features.

NOBODY has EVER suggested that they buy a particular camera on the HOPES
that CHDK might be available for it one day. Those are the beliefs of a
FOOL and a MORON.

So if my suggestion is so reasonable, why are you getting so
frantic and upset? Like is spittle running down your face?

Now unless your programming assembly skills are up to par, then go ahead!

assembly!? Not BASIC!?


Buy that latest camera! Help add another model to the ever growing list of
CHDK capable cameras.

Huh? Are you frothing?




...Or, have other people seen different results on
all other cameras recently? ...is this mostly an
sx120 problem?

No, this is mostly a YOU problem. You think you are automatically entitled
to something to which you are not.

I never implied that, but don't let that stop you.
However, I admit to not groveling, -- so that's what
has you craving your Vagisil?


(Besides that, I have used, and reccomend the "Acid" freeware
which decides which CHDK version you need and automagically
downloads and unzippes them for you. (I used it to get
other stuff related to CHDK.) An elegant little utility!)


Yes, it was written to help the tomes of morons who couldn't figure out the
extremely simple installation process. Morons would be very impressed. They
always are impressed every time that something is made more idiot-friendly.

And what of the morons who would rather spend an hour
researching and doing six steps rather than 1/4 hour
doing two steps? ...of as you point out...rote, mindless
crap that a BAT file does better? Do those kind of people
really need to get laid?

I posted the below 7 months ago!

In the CHDK development forum for SX120
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php...,4284.390.html
I saw quotes like this:

============start quotes:
" I haven't tested SX120 CHDK exhaustively, but are there any
open issues? I haven't found any bugs, maybe apart from the
squished logo aspect ratio..."

" CHDK for SX120 on: 14 / August / 2010,
Thanks Whin. I did compile it OK and CHDK is running fine."


Then what's the whole point of your post?

Is Canon's CHDK Hack Dead?

The only thing that's dead in this thread are your brain cells. There
should be a law passed to make it illegal for ungrateful morons like you to
be allowed to buy ANY camera.

Yer an amusing guy ken d. More or less
what everybody pictures when ya say "Usenet."
Like an ant on a hot sidewalk.
....able to amuse people for seconds at a time!

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:14:34 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Oh really!? You seriously think they left that
firmware accessable all these years BY ACCIDENT!?
Perhaps you know something I don't? Like......?

Like? Like I now fully know that you're a total moron.

If you had at least read the history of CHDK you'd know to not even pose a
comment like that. The firmware was NEVER accidentally accessible all these
years. The very first firmware had to be read out through a blinking LED on
the camera body, reading the LED blinks with a photo-diode, that signal
then fed into a sound-card, then software written to filter the LED light
intensity signal into digital bits. This is how ALL the firmwares of the
very first cameras in the CHDK project were obtained. Each one had to have
a different blinker utility written for it by randomly poking memory
addresses until one was found that would light any LED on the camera body,
no two cameras nor firmware numbers were ever the same for useable memory
locations.

Does that sound "accidentally accessible" to you? No camera firmware author
in their right mind would have even considered that their firmware could
have been read that way one day. This doesn't even include finding the
right encryption keys to make the blinked-out bits legible. That's yet a
whole other process.

YOU are a ****ING MORON TROLL WITHOUT ONE CLUE.

Go find some other topic to fill your troll's desperate need for attention.
You'll not waste any more of my valuable time.

ray wrote:
You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but perhaps
you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under the
impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial products
as long as the source is made available.

Is Canon free to release the source code under the GPL (or a
GPL-compatible license)? Or have they perhaps licensed some
of the code, maybe the denoising?

Is Canon willing to release the source code under the GPL
even if they can? After all, they'll tell the competition
what they are doing, which can be very valuable, even if you
won't be copying the code ...

-Wolfgang

Crash! wrote:

About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be
done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.)
[...]
But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!

Feel free to donate money or time to the effort.

-Wolfgang

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:25:09 +0200, Puppygang Trollberg
wrote:

Crash! wrote:

About then, I decided to get the SX120 (as you may recall,)
because of CHDK, and while it was *STILL* not complete, it was
seemingly almost complete, it seemed sure it would be
done by Xmas.. (See my below repost.)
[...]
But it's *STILL* NOT DONE, it's STILL only in Beta!

Feel free to donate money or time to the effort.

-Puppygang Trollberg

Money donations are NOT allowed, nor are they ever encouraged. Keep your
ignorant troll's opinions away from the CHDK project. Thank you.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:20:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

ray wrote:
You're obviously much more educated about the GPL than I am, but
perhaps you can explain to me how it would violate the GPL. I was under
the impression that GPL code could indeed be included in commercial
products as long as the source is made available.

Is Canon free to release the source code under the GPL (or a
GPL-compatible license)? Or have they perhaps licensed some of the
code, maybe the denoising?

As far as I can see, canon is free to release anything they want -
however, the source to chdk is not theirs to release. But if chdk is
operating under GPL, it is their responsibility to release the source. It
is my understanding that if canon were to incorporate any or all of the
chdk source in their firmware, they would be obligated to release that
portion they used - not the whole thing.


Is Canon willing to release the source code under the GPL even if they
can? After all, they'll tell the competition what they are doing, which
can be very valuable, even if you won't be copying the code ...

That's B.S. Everyone in the industry knows what they are doing - and what
everyone else is doing. 'Trade secrets' are very limited and greatly
overrated.



-Wolfgang